CHAPTER V.

REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE REMAINING SERVICES OF THE HIGH-PRIEST ON THIS DAY IN THE TIMES OF THE FIRST AND SECOND TEMPLES.

MISHNA: They brought to him a [golden] spoon and censer: he took two handfuls [of incense] and filled the spoon with it. If he had a large hand, it was much; otherwise, it was a little: he used the hand as the measure. He took the censer in his right hand, and the spoon in his left hand.

GEMARA: In a Boraitha we have learned: They brought him an empty spoon from the chamber of the utensils, and a censer full of incense from the chamber of Beth Abtinas.

"He took two handfuls." What was the spoon needed for on the Day of Atonement? It is written [Lev. xvi. 12] merely, "both his hands full of incense, and bring it within the rail"? He could not dispense with a spoon. If he had carried in the censer first, and thereafter the incense, he would carry in twice, and it is written "bring in" only once? If he should take the incense in both his hands, and put the censer upon them, and carry them in at once, what should he do then? Take off the censer with his teeth, and put it down? If it would be unbecoming to do so in presence of a human king, how much more in presence of the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He? Therefore it is impossible, and he is to do as the princes [Num. vii. 14], "One spoon . . . full of incense."

"He took the censer in his right hand," etc. Shall the citizen be seated on the ground, and the stranger on the heaven of heavens? ("The spoon of incense in his left hand," etc.) The spoon is small, and more easily carried in the left hand, while the large censer is borne in the right hand. And if they should be equally heavy, as occurred to R. Ishmael b. Qim'hith, who is said to have taken two handfuls of four Kabs of incense, even he had to take the censer in his right hand, as the censer was hot (and he had to be more careful).

on the Day of Atonement he spoke in a public place with an Arab, whose saliva was sprinkled on the high-priest's clothes. He became unclean (as the Arab might be so). Then his brother Jeshohab entered and took his place, so his mother saw two high-priests of her sons the same day. Another day it happened that he spoke with a Gentile nobleman, and the same happened. Then Joseph his brother took his place. And the rabbis taught: Seven sons had Qim'hith, their mother, and all officiated as high-priests. When the sages asked her: How hast thou deserved it? She replied: The ceiling of my house never looked on my hair. The sages answered: Many did so, and it did not profit them.

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. vi. 8]: "He shall lift up from it his handful." We might think, his hand might be overfilled; it is therefore written, "his hand full," not more. We might think, he may take some with the tips of his fingers. Therefore it is written, "hand full." He should bend his three middle fingers on his palm, and remove with the extreme finger and thumb the incense found outside of the three. This was one of the difficult services in the Temple.

R. Johanan said: R. Joshua b. Uza'ah propounded a question, What is the matter with the incense between the middle fingers? Is it considered as belonging to the handful, or the overflow? He himself, said R. Johanan, decided later that it is doubtful. What, then, shall he do therewith? Says R. Hanina: First he should offer the handful, and then this; for if he offered this first, perhaps it is superfluous: and elsewhere we have learned that if the remains of a meal-offering have been lost before the handful was offered, the handful must not be brought.

R. Papa propounded a question: These handfuls, were they exactly measured according to the hand, or too full? Said R. Abbi to R. Ashi: Come and hear the following Boraitha: The handfuls were not exactly according to the measure of the hand, nor overfull, but middling.

R. Papa propounded another question: When the incense happened to be spilled by him, how is the law? Shall it be said, his hand is like the neck of an animal, and the incense is invalid (if the blood has been received from the throat, it is valid, but not if spilled on the ground), or shall we say his hand is like other utensils of the Temple, and if it had been spilled, it may yet be offered? This question is not decided.

with his left hand, and placed it on the altar, is it valid, or invalid? He answered: We have learned it in our Mishna, that he took the spoon in his left hand (and yet it was offered). An objection was raised: We have learned in a Boraitha: "A layman, a mourner on the first day, a drunkard, and one who has a blemish, if one of these has received the blood, or carried it to the altar, or sprinkled it, he makes it invalid. The same is the case if he did it sitting, or with his left hand." This objection remains.

R. Papa propounded a question: If his companion took two handfuls, and emptied them into the priest's hands, how is the law? Shall we say, he has two handfuls, and it is valid, or shall we say, since it is written, "he shall take, and bring," it is invalid? This question is not decided. R. Joshua b. Levi propounded a question: When he had filled his hands with incense, and suddenly died, how then? Can another take it out from his hands and bring it in, or is other incense required? R. Hanina said: Come and see what kind of questions our predecessors have asked. Was R. Joshua b. Levi older than R. Hanina? Did not R. Joshua b. Levi say that R. Hanina had given me the permission to drink a beverage of cress on Sabbath? (See Sabbath, Mishna, p. 226.) He means, R. Hanina asked a profound question like to those asked by the ancestors. How is the law? Come and hear: "That was the measure." From this we must infer, that as the measure was outside, so it must be inside (that priest has a different hand, hence other incense is to be taken).

Perhaps the Mishna means to say that he may use his hand as a measure, or that he may not add to it or take away from what he has grasped? Come and hear: How did he do it (empty the frankincense from the spoon into his hands, both of which were occupied)? He took the handle of the spoon with his fingertips--others say, in his teeth--and moved his thumbs up the handle (being thus able not to spill the frankincense) till the handle fell, near his armpits, and the head of the spoon was above his palms. He then overturned the spoon, thus emptying the frankincense thence into his hands, and heaped the frankincense on the censer, that the smoke might be retarded; some say, he spread it out that it should smoke more rapidly.

This was one of the most difficult services of the difficult services that were in the Temple. Hence we see, he took of the frankincense once two handfuls, and then once more.

slaughtering, might the blood be sprinkled? Shall we say, that since it is written "with a bullock," it is meant, the blood of the bullock alone, or the whole bull (so that the substitute cannot use him)? R. Hanina says, the entire bullock; Resh Lakish says, the blood alone. Said R. Papa: The hide and the flesh and the dung, all agree, are only parts of the bull; about the blood they differ. One says, the blood is not the bull; the other thinks the blood only is the bull. Says R. Ashi: It seems to me, the one who says that the blood is considered as one with the bull is in the right. Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 3], "With this shall Aaron come into the holy place: with a young bullock," is it meant that he should lead him by the horns? and not simply that he should bring the blood; hence the blood is considered as one with the bullock. And what can the other reply to this? His answer is: It is written, "for a sin-offering"; the word "come" refers, not to the bullock, but to the sin-offering. Let him who says that the blood is one with the bull, give the reason that a sin-offering whose owner has died cannot be used for any purpose, and is only put to death.

Said Rabbin b. R. Adda to Rabba: Thy disciples have said in the name of R. Amram that this bullock is considered a sin-offering for the congregation (who are considered its owners, because he comes to atone for himself and for his fellow-priests), and such is not put to death.

MISHNA: He walked through the Temple till he reached the place between the two vails which separated the sanctuary from the Holy of Holies--one ell wide. R. Jose says: There was but one vail, as it is said [Ex. xxxi. 33]: "And the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy."

GEMARA: Did not R. Jose say very correctly to the rabbis? The rabbis may say: This was only the case in the tabernacle, but as in the second Temple there was no ell for the entrance at all (because a partition only an ell thick could not support itself, for the walls of the Temple were a hundred ells high) and only in the first, it was doubted whether this ell of the entrance belonged to the Holy of Holies or the sanctuary. Therefore they made two vails.

The rabbis taught: He walked between the altar and the lamps, so said R. Jehudah. R. Meir says, between the table and the altar. Others say, he walked between the table and the walls. Who are the others? That is R. Jose, who says the

door of the Temple was in the north. R. Jehudah says the door was in the south.

R. Jose says that he walked between the table and wall, which is a public entrance, because the Israelites are a people beloved by God, and need no delegate to pray for them (as it is written [1 Kings viii. 38]: "When they shall be conscious every man of the plague of his own heart, and he shall then spread forth his hands"), therefore their delegate to God needed no private entrance, but could do it in sight of the public.

R. Nathan said: The ell of the entrance was a matter of doubt to the sages, whether it was holy as the Holy of Holies or the sanctuary, and that is what R. Johanan has said: Joseph the man of Hutzal has propounded a question: It is written [1 Kings vi. 19]: "And the Debir in the house within did he prepare, to set therein the ark of the covenant of the Lord." They did not know what is meant: whether the place inside of the Debir was prepared for the ark, or that the Debir was itself inside.

MISHNA: The outer one was raised and looked to the southern [wall] and the inner one to the northern. He walked between them, till he reached the northern [wall]: having arrived thither, he turned his face to the south, he walked back with his left hand to the curtain, reaching the ark [which was on his right in the Holy of Holies, reaching the place where the inner curtain was]. Coming there, he placed the censer between the staves, heaped the incense on the top of the coals, so that the whole house was filled with smoke. He departed in the same manner as he had come [facing the Holy of Holies, walking backward], and said a short prayer in the outer sanctuary, but not making it a long one, so as not to alarm the Israelites [about his absence, lest he had been killed by God].

GEMARA: Of which Temple is it spoken? In the first Temple there was a partition, not a curtain, before the ark; if the second, there was no ark in it? As we have learned in the following Boraitha: Since the ark was concealed, with it were hidden the flask of manna [Ex. xvi. 33] and the flask of anointing oil, Aaron's staff, its almonds and buds, and the box the Philistines sent as a gift to the God of Israel with the golden vessels. And who concealed them? King Joshiah. Why? Because it is written [Deut. xxviii. 36]: "The Lord will drive thee and thy king whom thou wilt set over thee," he concealed it; as it is written [2 Chron. xxxv. 3]: "And he said unto the Levites that

instructed all Israel, who were holy men unto the Lord: Set the holy ark in the house which Solomon the son of David the King of Israel did build; ye have not to carry it any more upon your shoulders: now serve the Lord your God, and His people Israel." And R. Eliezer said to this: From the analogy of expression--namely, that of the ark--it is said "there" [Ex. xxx.], and of the flask of marina also "there" [ibid. xvii.]; and there are also mentioned "generations" and "for preservation." R. Eliezer infers that Joshiah concealed them. There was then no ark? The second Temple is meant; and not the ark, but the place where it had to stand, is meant. But it is said, "between the two staves." The place they would occupy is meant.

"Heaped the incense on the top of the coals." Our Mishna will agree with him who has said in a Boraitha: Heap it, that the issue of the smoke be retarded (made slow). In one Boraitha we have learned: He heaps it inside, away from him. In another Boraitha: He heaps it outside, toward himself. How will they agree? Says Abayi: There is a difference of opinion between two Tanaim; one says one way, the other, otherwise. Abayi says again: It seems to me the Halakha is according to him who says that he must heap it inside, away from himself; because, as we have further learned in a Mishna, they teach him not to heap near his face, lest he burn himself.

The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xvi. 13]: "He shall put the incense upon the fire, before the Lord." "Before the Lord": he must not prepare it outside, but inside, in the Holy of Holies. This is to contradict the Sadducecs, who said that he must prepare outside. Why? Because, they say, it is written [ibid. 2]: "For in the cloud will I appear upon the mercy-seat." Cloud is interpreted, the cloud of the incense. When he prepares outside, he enters with a cloud of incense. The sages said to the Sadducees: Is it not written: "He shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord"? So it has to be prepared inside. They rejoined: What will you make of the "cloud"? The rabbis say: From this we deduce that he must put in the herb which straightens the smoke. How is it known that that herb has to be put in? Because it is written [ibid. 13]: "That the cloud of the incense may envelop." Without that herb, how will the mercy-seat be enveloped? If he has omitted to put in this herb or any ingredient, he is liable to capital punishment. Why give this reason, when, if he come in without the incense being entirely prepared, he enters the Holy of Holies

gratuitously, which involves capital punishment? Says R. Shesheth: The case is, he had omitted one ingredient intentionally, but entered unintentionally. R. Ashi says: Even if he did both things intentionally, but entered with two kinds of incense, one kind prepared as is lawful and the other not, for entering he is not culpable, but for having prepared incense lacking some ingredient he deserves capital punishment.

"He departed in the same manner as he had come." Whence do we deduce this? Said R. Shama b. Na'hmain in the name of R. Jonathan: It is written [2 Chron. i. 13]: "Then came Solomon from the high place that was at Gibeon to Jerusalem" (literally, at). How comes Gibeon to be in Jerusalem? His return from Gibeon to Jerusalem is compared to his entering Gibeon from Jerusalem. As when he entered Gibeon from Jerusalem his face was turned to the high place, so when he left it, his face was still turned to the high place. So did also the priests after service, the Levites after their song, and the Israelites after they had been standing. When they left, their countenances were turned to the Temple. So also a disciple, leaving his Master, should do. So R. Elazar, when he used to part from Johanan. When R. Johanan desired to leave first, he bent himself in his place till Johanan was out of his sight; when R. Elazar was to leave first, he walked backwards till he could see him no longer. Rabba, leaving R. Joseph (who was blind), used to walk backwards till his feet struck against the threshold, so as to cause them to bleed. When this was related to R. Joseph, he said to Rabba: May God's will be that you shall raise your head above the whole city. R. Alexandri said in the name of R. Joshuah b. Levi: Who prays, should make three steps backwards, and then say, "Maketh peace," etc. Said R. Mordecai to him: If he has made three steps backwards, he must stop there a while. It is like a disciple who has taken farewell of his Master, and then returns to him on the instant, which is like a dog returning to his vomit. If he has failed in doing so, he would better not have prayed at all. In the name of Shemaia it has been said: When he says these words, he should first bow to the right, then to the left; as it is written [Deut. xxx. 2]: "From his right hand a fiery law." Rabha saw Abayi, who said "He maketh peace" first on the right, and then on his left. He said to him: Thinkest thou, thou must say this to the right side of thyself? nay, of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is opposite to thee and whose right side thus corresponds to thy left side. R. Hiya the son of R. Huna

said: I saw Abayi and Rabha making the three steps backwards with one bow.

"And said a short prayer." What was the prayer? Rabba and Rabbin the sons of R. Adda both said in the name of Rabh: May it be Thy will, Lord our God, that if this year will be a hot one, Thou mayest give plenty of rain. R. A'ha the son of Rabha said in the name of R. Jehudah that the high-priest used to conclude the prayer as follows: May no ruler cease from the house of Judah, and may Thy people Israel not depend for livelihood on each other (not be paupers), and mayest Thou not heed the prayers of travellers who ask for the cessation of rain.

R. Hanina Dasa happened to be on the road. It began to rain. He said: Lord of the Universe, the whole world enjoys, but Hanina is afflicted. The rain ceased. When he reached home, he said: The whole world is in anxiety because no rain comes, only Hanina is contented (having no fields). Rain began to come again.

Says R. Joseph: What availed the prayer of the high-priest against the prayer of R. Hanina Dasa?

The rabbis taught: It happened that one high-priest made his prayer very long. When the priests became alarmed, they went to see whether he had died, and met him returning. They inquired of him why he had made his prayer so long. He said: Is this displeasing to you, when I prayed the Lord that the Temple might not be destroyed? They said to him: Do not thou repeat it, as we have learned in the Mishna, He should not make the prayer long, lest he alarm the congregation."

MISHNA: When the ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the time of the first prophets, "Shethia" [foundation] it was called, three-finger high above the ground. Thereupon he placed [the censer]. He took the blood from the one who stirred it, went to the place whither he had gone, and stopped where he had stopped [in the Holy of Holies], and sprinkled from his position once upward and seven times downward [Lev. xvi. 14], without being intent on sprinkling it either upward or downward, but holding the palm open, either turned outward or toward himself [meaning doubtful]. Thus he was counting: one [upward], one and one [downward], one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He departed, and placed it [the basin] on the golden stand in the Temple. They brought to him the he-goat, he slaughtered it, and received in a basin its blood. He went to

the former place, stopping where he had stopped, and sprinkled thereof once upward, and seven times downward, without taking care to sprinkle upward or downward, but holding his palm open, turned in or out, and counting thus: one, one and one, one and two, etc. He came out, and placed it on the second stand that was in the Temple. R. Jehudah saith: There was but one stand there. He took up the bull's blood, and put down the he-goat's blood. He sprinkled thereof at the curtain which was opposite to the ark outside, once upward, and seven times down, without taking care, etc., and thus counting, etc. He lifted the blood [-filled basin] of the he-goat, and put down that of the bull's blood; he sprinkled of it on the curtain opposite to the ark outside, once upward, seven times down, etc. He emptied the bull's blood into the he-goat's blood, and transferred (the contents of) the filled basin into the empty one.

GEMARA: The Mishna says, "When the ark was taken away," not concealed; it holds, therefore, that it was removed to Babylon. As we have learned in a Boraitha, R. Eliezer said: The ark was taken into exile in Babylonia. As it is written [2 Chron. xxxvi. 10]: "And with the expiration of the year did King Nebuchadnezzar send, and had him brought to Babylon, with the precious vessels of the house of the Lord" (precious; that is, the ark). R. Simeon b. Jochai infers this from another passage [Is. xxxix. 6]: "No thing shall be left": no word (for "king," "word," and "commandment" the same Hebrew word is here used) will be left, none of the ten commandments (or the ark which contained them). R. Jehudah, however, says: The ark was concealed in its place (Temple), as it is written [1 Kings viii. 8]: "And they had made the staves so long, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place in the front of the Debir, but they were not seen without; and they have remained there until this day." And he who says that R. Simeon b. Jochai thinks that the ark was taken into exile, differs from Ulla, who says as follows: R. Mathia b. Heresh had asked R. Simeon b. Jochai in Rome: We see that R. Eliezer infers from two verses that the ark was taken into exile. One verse is quoted above; the other is [Lam. i. 6]: "There is gone forth from the daughter of Zion all her splendor." Thereby the ark is meant. What hast thou to say thereto? He replied: I say, the ark was concealed on the spot, and the proof is the verse quoted above. Said R. Na'hman b. Itz'hak: We have also learned it in a Mishna in Shekalim [VI., b]: "Once a priest was engaged there, and he

noticed that one of the paving stones on one place appeared different from the others. He went out to tell others of it; but he had not yet finished speaking, when he gave up the ghost. Thereby it was known to a certainty that the ark of the covenant was hidden there." What was he engaged in? Says R. Helbo: He was busy sporting with his axe. The disciples of R. Ishmael have taught: There were two blemished priests who picked out the wood, which was not mouldy. The axe of one fell down on the place where the ark was concealed; a fire issued, which consumed him.

"A stone, Shethia." We have learned in a Boraitha: The word Shethia means, that the universe has been created from it, as Shethia means foundation. This is according to him who says, that from Zion the world began to be created, as we have learned in the following Boraitha: R. Eliezer said: The world was created from the very middle, as it is written [Job xxxviii. 38]: "When the dust is poured out as molten metal, and the clods are made to cleave fast together" (first the central piece was made, then the other parts adhered to it). R. Joshua says: The world was created beginning with the extremities, as it is written [ibid. xxxvii. 6]: "For to the snow he saith, Be thou earth. Likewise to the pouring rain, and to the pouring rains of his strength." Four times the word "rain" is repeated here (in Hebrew, but "rain" means in Talmudic dialect "matter"). There were then four pieces of matter, and of them was composed the world. R. Itz'hak says: The Holy One, blessed be He, threw a stone into the sea, and therefrom a world was made. As it is written [ibid. xxxviii. 6]: "Upon what are her foundation-pillars placed at rest? or who threw her corner-stone"? The sages, however, said: The world was created beginning with Zion. As it is written [Ps. l. 1, 2]: "The God of Gods, the Lord Speaketh," etc. "Out of Zion, the perfection of beauty." That signifies, from Zion began to be the beauty of the whole world. In another Boraitha we have learned: R. Eliezer the Great said, It is written [Gen. ii. 4]: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, on the day, that the Lord God made earth and heaven." The luminous stars, etc., were created from the heavens, and all earthly things from the earth. But the sages say: Everything was created from Zion. As it is written [Ps. l. 1]: "A Psalm of Assaph. The God of gods," etc. "The perfection of beauty," i.e., the beauty of the whole world.

"Holding the palm open." What is meant by this? Said R. Jehudah: As one uses a lash first from the right to the left, and then downward.

"He took the blood from the one who stirred it," etc. We have learned in a Boraitha: When he sprinkled, he did not sprinkle on the top of the mercy-seat, but opposite; and not that the blood should fall on it, but on the ground. When he sprinkled on the top of the mercy-seat, he bent the palm downward, that it should not fall on the mercy-seat, and when he sprinkled beneath it, he held his palm bent upward, that it should not fall on the mercy-seat, but on the ground. Whence do we deduce this? Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 15]: "He shall sprinkle it above the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat." This had not to be written, as it has already been written in the case of the bullock [ibid. 14]. It is meant to make the "before" and "above" equal; as by "before" the mercy-seat, it is meant that it should not be sprinkled at it, but opposite to it; so also by "above" is meant, not upon it, but opposite to it.

The rabbis taught: It is written: "And he shall sprinkle it above the mercy-seat." From this we know only once above (it, in case of the goat). How many times had he to sprinkle downward? This we have to infer from the bullock: as it is written of him seven times, so we infer in regard to the he-goat. We know that it is equal in case of the bullock and goat, downward; but we do not know how many times he is to sprinkle downward in case of the bullock? We apply to the bullock the law in reference to the goat: as in the case of the goat, so in the case of the bullock--once downward, seven times upward.

"One, one and one," etc. The rabbis taught: He counted one, one and one, one and two, etc., up to seven. So said R. Meir. R. Jehudah says: One, one and one, two and one, three and one, four and one, five and one, six and one, seven and one. They do not differ. Each said according to the custom in his part of the country (in the one place they said, e.g., twenty-one, in the other one and twenty). Now we see that all agree that the first time of sprinkling had to be counted along with each of the other seven? What is the reason? Said R. Elazar: He should make no mistake in the number of countings. R. Johanan says: Because it is written again [ibid. 14]: "Shall he sprinkle," superfluously, it is to teach us that the first he ought to count with all the others, What is the point of their difference?

[paragraph continues] R. Elazar says: If he has failed to do it, but made no mistake, it is valid; but according to R. Johanan, it is not.

"He departed, and placed it on the golden stand." One of the scholars read the prayer in the presence of Rabha, and read, "He departed, and placed it on the second stand"; and after this he read, "He took the he-goat's blood, and put down the bullock's blood." Said Rabha to him: The first thing thou readest according to the rabbis (who say there were two stands), and the second according to R. Jehudah (who says there was but one stand, and therefore he took down the bullock's blood when he came with the goat's blood), you thus contradict yourself. You should say: He put down the goat's blood (on the second stand), and took up the bullock's blood (from the first, stand).

The rabbis taught: It is written [ibid. 16]: "So shall he do for the tabernacle," etc. Wherefore had this to be written? It comes to teach us, that as in the Holy of Holies he had to sprinkle once and seven times, both from the bullock's blood and the goat's, so he had to do in the sanctuary.

"That abideth among them in the midst of their uncleanness." This signifies, even when they were unclean, the Shekhina continued to be among them. A certain Sadducee said to R. Hanina: At the present time, when the Temple is destroyed, ye are certainly unclean, as it is written [Lam. i. 9]: "Her uncleanness on her skirts." He replied to him: Come and see. It is written: "That abideth among them in the midst of their uncleanness."

We have learned in a Boraitha: When he sprinkled on the vail, he sprinkled not upon it, but opposite to it (that the blood fell on the ground). R. Eliezer b. R. Jose, however, said: I have seen on the vail in Rome the marks of the drops of blood of the bullock and goat of the Day of Atonement.

What is the law, when the bloods of the bullock and goat got mingled? What shall he do therewith? Says Rabha: He sprinkled thereof once upward, and seven times downward, and this sufficed for both. This Halakha has been communicated to Jeremiah in Palestine: He said: Ye Babylonians are stupid. Because ye live in a dark land, ye say dark Halakhas. In this manner, he will sprinkle the he-goat's blood before the bullock's, and it is written [Lev. xvi. 20]: "When he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place." "The end"--hence everything must be in its proper turn. What, then, shall he do? Says

[paragraph continues] R. Jeremiah: Once he sprinkles it as the bullock's, and then a second time as the he-goat's blood.

How if the bloods got mixed, when he has already sprinkled the bullock's blood upward? Said Rabha: He should sprinkle it seven times downward as the bullock's, and then upward and downward as the he-goat's, blood. How if he has confounded the basins? What shall he do then? He should sprinkle three times, once for the bullock, then for the he-goat, and the third time for the he-goat (lest the he-goat's blood had preceded the bullock's when he sprinkled the first time).

"He emptied the bull's blood into the he-goat's." Our Mishna will be according to him who maintains that the bloods must be mixed, for the purpose of putting it on the corners of the altar. Because it was taught: R. Joshiah and R. Jonathan said, one of them that they had to be mingled, and the other that they ought not to be mingled, but put separately on the corners of the altar. It seems that R. Joshiah was the one who said they had to be mingled, as we have heard elsewhere, though it is not written "together" [Lev. xvi. 18]; yet since it is written "and," it is as good as though it had been written "together."

We have learned in another Boraitha: It is written: "He shall take from the blood of the bullock and the blood of the he-goat." That signifies, they should be mixed together. But whence do ye know that it means that they should be sprinkled together, not separately? Therefore it is written [Ex. xxx. 10]: "And Aaron shall make an atonement upon its horns once in a year": once, not repeatedly. We see that the anonymous Boraitha is according to R. Joshiah.

"He transferred (the contents of) the filled one into the empty one." Rami b. Hama propounded a question of R. Hisda: If he had placed one basin in the other, and therein received the blood, how is it? Should we say, as they are of one kind, that forms no invalidation? or that though of one kind, it is an invalidation? R. Hisda answered him: We have learned it in our Mishna: He has transferred the filled one into the empty one. Shall we not assume that it means, he placed the full basin in the empty one? Nay. It means, he poured the contents of the full basin into the empty one. But this is already mentioned in the beginning of the sentence? He transfers the mixed blood again into an empty vessel, to mix the two kinds of blood the better.

MISHNA: He then went out to the altar which is before the Lord, which is the golden altar, and began to cleanse it, downward. Whence does he begin? From the northeastern corner [horn] to the northwestern, southwestern, southeastern. Where he begins to cleanse the outer altar, at that spot he finishes cleansing the inner. R. Eliezer says he remains where he stands, and thence cleanses [the altar being one ell square]. Everywhere he sprinkled from below upward, except at the spot where he stood, whereat he sprinkled from above downward.

He, sprinkled on the clean place of the altar [where the gold was to be seen] seven times, and what remained of the blood he poured at the western base of the outer altar, and what remained of the blood of the outer altar he poured at the southern base. Both kinds of blood mingled in the trench, and flowed out into the brook Kidron. And it was sold to gardeners as manure, but one offends by [using without paying for] them.

GEMARA: We have learned in a Boraitha: Why is it necessary to repeat here, "before the Lord"? Said R. Nehemiah: Because we find that when he held the bloods of the bullock and he-goat he stood inside of the altar, and sprinkled the blood on the vail, we might think that at the same time he should sprinkle on the golden altar: therefore it is written [Lev. iv. 7], "the altar of the incense of spice, before the Lord," to let us know that the altar was before the Lord, but not the priest. What, then, should he do? He had to come out to the outside of the altar, and thence sprinkle.

"Began to cleanse it, downward." The rabbis taught: He began to cleanse from above downward. And whence did he begin? From the southeastern to the southwestern, northwestern, northeastern. So is the decree of R. Aqiba. R. Jose the Galilean said: From the northeastern to the northwestern, southwestern, southeastern. So that at the place where, according to R. Jose, he begins, according to R. Aqiba he finishes, and vice versa. Now we see that, according to all, he does not begin with the corner he meets first, but some definite corner. What is the reason? Said Samuel: Because it is written, "He went out to the altar," till he has come out from the place inside of the altar, and comes outside. (What is the point of difference between the two Tanaim?) The following: R. Aqiba thinks he has to walk round the altar, and R. Jose that he ought only to cleanse the altar at all corners, making its round with the hand. We have learned in a Boraitha: R. Ishmael said: Two high-priests

remained of the first Temple. One said, he had passed round the altar with his hand; and the other, he had walked round it with his feet. And both gave their reasons. The one said: As it is written, "round." The inner altar was like the outer, which was large, and had to be walked around; while the other said: It was small, and with his hand one could reach all corners, as it was only in size like one corner of the outer altar: hence it was not necessary to walk round it.

"He sprinkled at the clean place of the altar." What is meant by the clean place? Said Rabba b. R. Shila: Where the altar was not covered, as it is written [Ex. xxiv. 10]: "Like the color of heaven in clearness." We have learned in a Boraitha: Hanania says, he sprinkled on the northern side, and, R. Jose says, southern. On what point do they differ? The one says the door of the sanctuary was at the north, the other says, at the south; but all agree, that where he finished to put the blood on the corners, at that side he sprinkled on the top. What is the reason? Because it is written [Lev. xvi. 19]: "He shall cleanse it and hallow it." That signifies where he had hallowed it, there he shall cleanse it.

"What remained of the blood," etc. This is because it is written [ibid. iv. 7]: "All the (remaining) blood of the bullock shall he pour out," and when he comes out, he meets the western base of the outer altar first.

"Of the outer altar, he poured at the southern base." The rabbis taught: By the base of the altar, the southern base is meant.

And another Boraitha states that, according to R. Ishmael, it was the western. The disciples of R. Ishmael, however, taught in the name of R. Ishmael, as the disciples of R. Simeon b. Jochai, that it was the southern (that is, R. Ishmael revoked what he said).

"One may offend," etc. The rabbis taught: One becomes guilty, when he uses the blood for his benefit. So is the decree of R. Meir and R. Simeon. The sages, however, said: The blood may be used. They are at variance only as to whether it is rabbinically an offence or not; but all agree that, biblically, one cannot offend (for if they thought it was biblical, they would not sell it to gardeners. Tosphath.) Whence do we deduce this? Says Ulla: It is written [Lev. xvii. 11]: "I have appointed it for you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls": for you, it should belong to you. The disciples of R. Simeon taught: To make an atonement, but not an offence.

[paragraph continues] R. Johanan says: In the same verse it is written, "For the blood it is that maketh an atonement for the soul." It is (after the atonement) as it had been before the atonement.

MISHNA: It holds true of all the rites on the Day of Atonement, whose order is prescribed by the Bible (and stated in the above Mishnas), that if they are performed in a wrong order, one has done nothing. Had he used the blood of the he-goat previously to that of the bull, he should sprinkle once more some of that he-goat's blood after that bull's blood, and if while he had not completed the offering of the gifts in the inner part [Holy of Holies], the blood was spilled, it is incumbent upon him to fetch other blood, and once more sprinkle it inside, and the same is the case in the Temple, and also of the golden altar, because all [rites] are separate atonements. R. Elazar and R. Simeon say, however: From where he had been mistaken, he should begin anew.

GEMARA: The rabbis taught: It holds true of all ceremonies of the Day of Atonement whose order is stated in the Mishna, if one of them has been performed earlier than that which should precede it, it is as nothing. R. Jehudah, however, said: This is only true of the rites performed in the white garments in the Holy of Holies, but of the ceremonies performed in the white garments outside (e.g., the lots, emptying the remaining blood, or confessions), it is true that if he has done them out of the right order, they are still valid. R. Nehemiah said: The case is simply, all ceremonies performed not in the right order in the white garments, whether in the Holy of Holies or outside, are invalid; but the rites performed in the golden garments outside must not be done again. Said R. Johanan: Both have deduced it from the same verse. It is written [Lev. xvi. 34]: "And this shall be unto you as a statute for everlasting, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year." R. Jehudah holds, what is meant by "once a year"? Where the atonements are made once a year, and that is in the Holy of Holies. R. Nehemiah holds, that not the place where once a year the rites are performed is meant, but the rites done for atoning once a year, and that is inside and outside.

How can R. Jehudah say, the place is meant? It is only written "once a year." We must say, the reason of R. Jehudah is this: It is written, "and this shall be," and then "once a year." Hence two limitations, one excluding what is performed in the white garments outside of the Holy of Holies, the other

excluding what is done in the golden garments. And R. Nehemiah says: The one expression excludes what is performed in the golden clothes, and the other the remainders of the blood, which, if not emptied at all, involves no transgression.

R. Hanina said: If he has taken the handfuls of frankincense before the bullock has been slaughtered, he has done nothing. This cannot be according to R. Jehudah, for according to R. Jehudah it is only the rites performed in the Holy of Holies, but this is done outside? Nay; even according to R. Jehudah it would have been invalid. Why? Because it is a preparatory service for a service performed in the Holy of Holies (it is equal to such a service).

Ulla said: If he has slaughtered the goat before the bullock's blood had been sprinkled, he has done nothing. An objection was raised: It is said in our Mishna, if he has sprinkled the he-goat's blood before the bullock's, he should sprinkle once more. If it were as Ulla says, it should have been said: he should slaughter a second time. Ulla explained the Mishna: That is the case with the offerings in the sanctuary, but in the Holy of Holies the bullock's blood must be sprinkled first, then the he-goat must be slaughtered. And so has also R. Ephes explained.

"The same is the case in the Temple," etc. The rabbis taught: It is written [Lev. xvi. 33]: "He shall make an atonement for the sanctuary of holiness, and for the tabernacle of the congregation and for the altar shall he make an atonement; and also for the priests and for all the people of the congregation shall he make an atonement." The sanctuary of holiness--that is, the Holy of Holies; by the tabernacle the Temple is meant--the altar, literally; "shall he make an atonement"--by this is meant the court where the priests might walk; "the priests," literally, "the people of the congregation," Israel; "make an atonement" once more--that means the Levites.

All are then equal in their atonement; that is, all are atoned for by the scapegoat for all sins except uncleanness. So said R. Jehudah. R. Simeon, however, said: As the blood of the he-goat, sprinkled inside, atones for Israel only the uncleannesses of the Temple and all sacred things, so the blood of the bullock atones for the priests only the sins of uncleanness. And as the confession over the scapegoat atoned for Israel's other sins, so also the confession over the bullock atoned for the other sins of the priests.

In a Boraitha we have learned: Rabbi has said: My Master, R. Jacob, has taught me this difference of opinion of R. Elazar and R. Simeon in our Mishna is only in relation to the logs offered by lepers.

R. Johanan said: The trespass-offering of a leper, if slaughtered for a wrong purpose, is where the same difference of opinion of our Mishna exists. According to R. Meir, who says that if he has made a mistake, he must begin anew, he must in this case also bring another trespass-offering. But according to R. Elazar and R. Simeon, who say that he must begin where he had made the mistake, there is no mending of this mistake; for it has been slaughtered already (and if he should slaughter another, he will offer two, while it is written one). The following Boraitha is according to R. Johanan: If a leper's trespass-offering has been slaughtered for another purpose, or some of its blood was not put on the thumbs and great toes of the leper, it may be offered on the altar, and requires a drink-offering; but another trespass-offering has to be offered.

The rabbis taught: All things mentioned in our Mishna--bullocks, he-goats--that have become invalid, defile the garments of him who burns them, and they must be burned in the place where the real sacrifices are burned. [See Lev. xvi. 27, 28.] So is the decree of R. Eliezer and R. Simeon. The sages, however, say: They are not to be burned, because only those which have been used the last, because used for the atonement, must be burned there. Rabha asked R. Na'hman: (If the he-goats have become invalid, two others are required) how many shall he despatch as scapegoats? R. Na'hman answered him: Shall he send a whole flock? R. Papi says in the name of Rabha: He sends the first. R. Simi says in the name of the same: The last. It is right according to R. Simi, because the other of the couple has been used for the atonement; but what is the reason of Rabha, according to R. Papi's saying? He holds as R. Jose of the following Boraitha: If one separates his Paschal lamb and the same be lost, and after he purchases another one in its stead the first one is found, he may offer either one of them. So is the decree of the sages. R. Jose, however, says: There is a merit to offer the first one, unless the second was a better one.